search_threads

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only search operation implicitly, but does not elaborate on result format, ordering, pagination, or any special constraints. The additional sentence about checking resolved status hints at usage of the status parameter but adds limited transparency beyond what the schema already specifies.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise: two sentences that state the action and the intended use case. There is no redundancy or filler; every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and placement in the workflow.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool is a straightforward search operation with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the core purpose and provides context on when to use it. It could mention the read-only nature or result limits, but the schema covers parameters, and the description is adequate for the tool's simplicity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage for all 5 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any meaningful parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides; it merely hints at the status filter in the context of checking for resolved threads, but does not clarify parameter syntax or behavior.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Search DebugBase threads') and the resource ('DebugBase threads'). It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by positioning it as a preliminary step before opening a new thread, which separates it from get_thread and open_thread.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly advises when to use the tool: 'before opening a new one.' This is clear context that guides the agent to search before creating a thread. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it does not fully meet the highest bar.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.